Oh really? Do you think tree ring growth patterns of a population of trees in Canada should be used to "reconstruct" temperature records in Europe? That's what Michael Mann did and no one in the climate change community challenged him. Seriously, doesn't that bother your intuition one bit? How about using a linear regression coefficient of 0.2 to calibrate your standard curve? Does that sound valid to you?

This is why the vast majority of scientists support it.

There's the consensus argument again. It's a logical fallacy and you know this because I already told you so.

You operate under the delusion that everyone is an idiot but yourself.

There is a healthy community of skeptics who do great work. I just read their stuff. I could recommend some websites if that's allowed.

Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Oh really? Do you think tree ring growth patterns of a population of trees in Canada should be used to "reconstruct" temperature records in Europe? That's what Michael Mann did and no one in the climate change community challenged him. Seriously, doesn't that bother your intuition one bit? How about using a linear regression coefficient of 0.2 to calibrate your standard curve? Does that sound valid to you?

You'll reject anything I present to refute this or deem it unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I have tried countless times in the past and I am not going to either. You are by far the most impossibly unreasonable person I have ever come across in my entire life.

Originally Posted by Tellenbach

There's the consensus argument again. It's a logical fallacy and you know this because I already told you so.

NO. PERIOD. END OF STORY. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FUCKING MATTERS. YOU ARE WRONG. I AM TELLING YOU THIS AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.

You are by far the most impossibly unreasonable person I have ever come across in my entire life.

Show me the evidence. Is that too much to ask? The CO2 levels have risen in the last 20 years but we haven't seen any warming for 18 years. Why not? Why didn't any of these climate scientists predict this? and if they were wrong about this, why should we trust any of their predictions?

Originally Posted by Hard

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FUCKING MATTERS. YOU ARE WRONG. I AM TELLING YOU THIS AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.

It matters in getting grants and getting published but it has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I could easily list ten consensus opinions that have been proven wrong. It only takes one exception to disprove your consensus argument.

Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Show me the evidence. Is that too much to ask? The CO2 levels have risen in the last 20 years but we haven't seen any warming for 18 years. Why not? Why didn't any of these climate scientists predict this? and if they were wrong about this, why should we trust any of their predictions?

I'm just going to repeat myself: You'll reject anything I present to refute this or deem it unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I have tried countless times in the past and I am not going to either. You are by far the most impossibly unreasonable person I have ever come across in my entire life.

So yes, it is too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Tellenbach

It matters in getting grants and getting published but it has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I could easily list ten consensus opinions that have been proven wrong. It only takes one exception to disprove your consensus argument.

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FUCKING MATTERS. YOU ARE WRONG. I AM TELLING YOU THIS AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.

There's the consensus argument again. It's a logical fallacy and you know this because I already told you so.

If ten thousand random Johnnys said it was true then it would be logical to challenge it based on whether any of said Johnnys knew their subject. When ten thousand trained and accredited people say it's true then it is logical to accept their view unless you have evidence to the contrary.

The only other route would be to logically undermine the established methods of accrediting scientists. Trust me, they don't like that and it really holds little gain on further analysis.

Sure, don't be a blind herd beast but it's just as daft to reject something as untrue because you don't want it to be so.

Without consensus you have random nonsense because one experiment does not make or break a hypothesis. You cant throw everything out because of one bad experiment, and you can't accept it based on one experiment.

Things must be in concurrence, experiments must be repeatable and they must be done many times to rule out any flukes. Consensus must eventually appear. Just like how not all trees are helpful because maybe not all of them grow right, but on average there can be a trend because trees are not totally random, they work a certain way and have upper and lower limits to how "off" they can be, i.e. there is a margin in which the tree can be alive and at the same time grow in the way it does which is something that will be found all over. Not to mention that many trees actually are fairly evenly grown cylinders.

Every statistic has outliers but what we look for is the overall trend, and the trend can't make itself out of nothing. Data is taken from many different sources and several different institutes which is why charts have a bunch of different colored lines on them. A trend of this magnitude cannot lie, especially when many independent sources show a trend, and nearly the same trend.

So we can't really say that the science is wrong. Just say that they fudged the numbers entirely if that's what you think and be done with it so we can move on with our lives. But we can't support the claim that the science is impossible because it isn't.

When ten thousand trained and accredited people say it's true then it is logical to accept their view unless you have evidence to the contrary.

It's still a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority and in the case of climate science, it's an appeal to circle jerking greenies. Oh, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary, like the last 18 years of satellite surface temperature data.

Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.